Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1067648,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1067648/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 168,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Baringo North, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. William Cheptumo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 50,
        "legal_name": "William Cheptumo Kipkiror",
        "slug": "william-kipkiror"
    },
    "content": "and clearly committed to the idea of a constitution. At the same time and with the same energy they categorically neglect the notion of constitutionalism. This is where the problem is. Today, as a House we are debating our Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill to amend our Constitution. We believe in the Constitution but, we do not believe in the constitutionalism in this document. If we do so, we should be able to believe in the institutions we are creating. One of the reasons why I am opposing this constitutional amendment Bill is because it is premised on a foundation that is not constitutionalism. Already, we see the impunity in this process where we say we cannot stop reggae. The process being undertaken has already faced a challenge of impunity. That is why even in this House, when Members of the august House express opposite or different views, they are punished. I also want to say that there are very fundamental provisions in this Bill which are really good like Article 4, Article 5, clause 6, and so on. Let me cite one: If you look at clause 10, there is a serious argument that Wanjiku can determine the number of constituencies. That is okay but, I want to submit that it as much as Wanjiku may have the right to increase the number of constituencies, Wanjiku does not have the power to allocate those constituencies to various counties as done under Schedule 2 of the Bill. To that extent, what is unconstitutional in the Bill is a good reason that this House should reject this Bill so that we can...."
}